This article originally appeared in Ripper Notes. Ripper Notes is the only American Ripper periodical available on the market, and has quickly grown into one of the more substantial offerings in the genre. For more information, view our Ripper Notes page. Our thanks to the editor of Ripper Notes for permission to reprint this article.

Did Kelly Have a Heart?
by Dave Yost

One of the many
controversies within the case of Mary Jane Kelly is whether or
not her heart was taken by her killer. Some have concluded that
the killer not only removed the heart from the chest cavity, but
also took it with him when he left the scene, while others accept
that the heart was merely removed from the body, and some view
all of this as too vague. As with many other aspects within our
world of Jack the Ripper, there seems to be an insufficient
amount of facts, which specifically spell things out for us, (and
sometimes even the facts may appear to be ambiguous), but there
is usually more than enough circumstantial evidence which can be
utilized by either side of the aisle. This one topic is no
different.

On any particular
avenue of research, we are not necessarily aided by the media, as
Paul Begg has rightly pointed out, "There are several
newspaper reports that state that notwithstanding stories to the
contrary, all body parts were accounted for. Other newspapers, of
course, carried stories that parts were missing." While Paul
Begg's statement is very true, one news article found by Stephen
Gouriet Ryan is of interest:

"Though the
coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming
out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious
nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems
that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it
away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the
body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he
forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out
from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not,
as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..." 1
Nick Warren has
concluded that The Observer's article refers to Dr Bond's report,
"Anatomical detail in the item [article] suggests that it
was taken from a leaked copy of Dr. Thomas Bond's autopsy report
on Kelly. If so, it indicates that when he wrote that the heart
was "absent", he meant "taken away." Yet,
Paul Begg demurs on this point suggesting, "It will be seen
that the Observer refers to a report, meaning a newspaper or more
likely a news agency report, not to Dr. Bond's report. That the
ultimate source of the information was Dr. Bond's report was a
piece of speculation by Nick Warren...If the source was indeed
Dr. Bond's report then we know what Dr. Bond wrote - he wrote
that the heart was 'absent' - and we know that this can be
interpreted as either removed from the body or missing from the
room. The Observer's reporter may simply have interpreted the
word as taken away. I would not be inclined to think that Dr.
Bond's report was the source, however, as his report appears to
have been prepared specifically for senior level Police. A more
likely source is any one of the several doctors at the autopsy.
The Times, 13 November 1888, commented 'Notwithstanding reports
to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some
portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing.' Who
'confidently asserted' this? One of the surgeons? Or, since the
informed source isn't named, it could just have been general
gossip among attendants at the mortuary.", adding that this
conflict "...is made worse by Dr Bond's report because we
don't know what he meant." 2

The alleged confusion
over Dr Bond's report is due to his use of the word,
"absent". And, depending on what one wishes to believe,
absent can mean either merely removed from the body or completely
taken out of the room. Yet, there can be no doubt, however, that
organs were at least removed from Kelly's body. It seems
reasonable that The Observer's reference to the
"one report published on Friday" is probably referring
to another news article and not directly to Dr Bond's report, as
Paul Begg states. Yet, The Observer's one comment,
"That he cut the heart out from below...", is too
similar in content to Dr Bond's known report of the autopsy,
("The Pericardium was open below & the Heart
absent"), to merely accept that either news report stemmed
from general gossip. And, if the leak did stem from someone who
was at the autopsy, then it carries no less weight than if the
reporter had unofficially seen Dr Bond's report. And yes, we do
know what Dr Bond wrote, whether or not The Observer's
article factually stemmed directly from his report. But, do we
not know what he meant? Dr Bond specificly wrote with respect to
the lack of a heart within the chest cavity, and it would only be
speculation, without further data, to conclude that he meant
anything else. I must demur on the the alleged ambiguity of Dr
Bond's report, and offer the following with respect to what might
have happened to Kelly's heart.
At approximately
1:30 P.M., Friday, 9 November, Superintendent Arnold ordered
the door to Kelly's room at 13 Miller's Court to be broken
open. Photographs were taken; Dr Phillips and Dr Dukes
examined the body; a search of the room was made; and, Insp
Abberline took inventory of the room's contents, noting that
a fire had burned in the grate (part of a hat brim was in the
grate and a near-by kettle had a melted spout and handle. The
ashes were still warm). 3

This single room
(10ft x12ft) was actually a partitioned section of the ground
floor back room. The only door was just inside the arched
entry to the court, and the room was sparse: Opposite of the
door was the fire-grate; to the left, the broken window; and,
to the right, the table and bed. 'The Fisherman's
Widow", hung over the mantelpiece. A cupboard was in the
corner. At the foot of the bed, a chair upon which lay folded
clothes. (Some later reports indicate that a hatchet was by
the door.) A body lay sprawled on the bed. 4

The body had a
thin chemise and was situated in the middle of the bed; the
shoulders lay flat, but the body leanedtoward the left side
of the bed; the head was turned toward the left shoulder,
facing the windows; the right arm lay across the body with
the right hand in the abdominal cavity; the left arm was
partly removed from the body and lay on the bed, it was bent
at the elbow and the fingers were clenched; the legs were
spread apart, (the left leg lay flat on the bed and the right
leg was slightly above the bed, due to the leaning of the
body); and, the bed clothing and the right corner of the bed
were saturated with blood. About two square feet of blood was
below the bed, and the wall by the right bedstead had several
splashings of blood. 5

The thighs were
stripped and the abdomen was removed, (flesh removed from the
abdomen and thighs were placed on the table by the door); the
abdominal cavity was empty; the breasts were cut off, (one
was placed under the head and the other was by the right
foot); the arms were mutilated; her facial features were
removed; the neck was severed down to the spine; (the left
femur appears to be split from the hips downward, exposing
the marrow cavity); the uterus and kidneys were also placed
under the head; the liver was placed between the feet; and,
the intestines lay by the right side of the body. 6

The autopsy was
conducted at 7:30 A.M. on Saturday, 10 November by Dr
Phillips, his assistant, Dr Bond, Dr Brown, and Dr Dukes and
tells us the following: The face was cut in all directions;
numerous cuts across all features; the neck was cut down to
the vertebrae; the cuts showed distinct ecchymosis; the
breasts were removed by quasi-circular incisions; associated
muscles attached to the breasts; the thorax was visible
through the cuts; the abdomen and costal arch to pubes
removed; the front right thigh skinned down to the bone; the
left thigh was stripped of skin and muscle as far as the
knee; the left calf had a long incision running from the knee
to 5" above the ankle; both arms and forearms had
extensive jagged wounds; the right thumb had a 1"
superficial cut, extravasation of the blood in the skin and
several abrasions on the back of the hand; lower part of the
right lung was broken and torn away; the left lung was
intact; the pericardium was open below and the heart absent;
and, partly digested food was found in the abdominal cavity
and in the stomach remains.7
While some have
concluded that Dr Bond's report is insufficiently explicit for a
proper evaluation of what was meant, I suggest that there really
is no ambiguity about Dr Bond's statement from the autopsy.
"The Pericardium was open below & the Heart
absent." This is very explicit, indeed. Dr Bond clearly
wrote that the conical sac which encloses the heart was empty of
its contents. The heart was missing, and this can only achieved
by removal.

The
"inventory" of the organs, (at 13 Miller's Court and
during the autopsy) is very thorough. Neither the heart, nor its
location were specified; yet, the other organs were mentioned.
What does this tell us? That the heart was neither near the body,
while it still lay on the bed, nor was it present during the
autopsy. But could it still have been within the room?

Insp Abberline took an
inventory of the room's contents. The room was only 10ft x 12ft
with few items. Between Insp Abberline's search and the others
who were in the room after McCarthy broke in the door (which
includes Dr Phillips and Dr Dukes), had the heart been elsewhere
within the room it surely would have been found. It would be very
doubtful that the heart was readily overlooked, let alone
completely missed. As for the fireplace, it is possible that the
killer might have tried to burn it. But, a heart will not simply
be consumed and disintegrate, like paper or clothes. It would
have been found by Insp Abberline when he went through the ashes
had it been there.

The various
interpretations of Dr Bond's report actually stem from him not
specifically stating that the heart was not found anywhere within
the room. Even though Dr Bond did not go out of his way to state
it, this does not mean that the heart could still have been
somewhere in the room. And it should be pointed out that Dr Bond
was not necessarily required to state what was not there, only
what was there. The evidence does clearly indicate that the heart
was missing from the room. While Dr Bond specifically wrote of
the heart's absence from the body, there should be little doubt
that it was also "taken away".